Friday, September 14, 2007

Friday at last. Tomorrow, in DC, there's a rally, a march, a die-in and a lot more. It starts at noon so get here if you can. (Isn't that a song?) :D Elaine and I are both blogging so check out Like Maria Said Paz for her thoughts. And we're using headlines from Democracy Now! (and the photo C.I. used in "And the war drags on" last night)

Bush Sees 'Enduring' Occupation of IraqPresident Bush has vowed the U.S. will keep a large number of troops in Iraq well beyond his presidency. In a prime-time address last night, Bush said he foresees what he called "an enduring relationship" between Iraq and the United States. Bush made the call in announcing he would withdraw a limited number of troops by July of next year. But administration officials quietly announced part of the so-called troop "surge" contingent could remain and even more troops could be sent. That would mean a larger occupation next summer than just before the surge began earlier this year. President Bush also singled out progress in Anbar province where former Sunni insurgents have switched sides and are now fighting al-Qaida in Iraq.

What ends the illegal war at this point? Not the Bully Boy and OBVIOUSLY not the cowardly Democrats. The only thing that's going to end it is the people. And we're not to end it by doing online petitions and e-mails. We're not going to do it by sucking up to the Democrats and refusing to hold them accountable. Anyone who's not for Troops Home Now doesn't have my vote. That's all over the ticket. There's the Green Party and others as well but the Green Party gets every vote automatically that I would have given to a Democrat if the candidate was supporting Troops Home Now.

I'm not going to hold my nose and look the other way while I vote. I'm not going to tell my grandchildren decades from now, "Yeah, I knew the Democrat wasn't going to do anything to end the illegal war but Katrina vanden Heuvel said we had to vote Democratic. Yeah, that's her. No, it wasn't a surprise that she ended up running the CIA at all. Her father was part of it, after all. Yep, she was useless even back then too."

I am against the illegal war and no one who wants to continue it will get my vote in 2008. That's not open to discussion.

Calls Grow for Release of Imprisoned JournalistA leading media protection group is renewing calls for the U.S. to release an al-Jazeera cameraman from Guantanamo Bay. Sami Al-Haj is now more than eight months into a hunger strike protesting his imprisonment without charge or trial. Doctors who've examined him say it appears he's given up his fight to live. Yesterday Democracy Now spoke to Joel Campagna, Middle East program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, about al-Haj’s case.Joel Campagna: "He is a journalist who worked for al Jazeera who was detained in the line of work for over five years now. He has yet to be charged with a crime. The implication of his arrest is that the U.S. military can effectively remove a journalist from the battlefield, hold them for years without end, without charge and not be compelled to charge them with a crime. And we've been calling on the U.S. military to either charge Sami Al-Haj with a crime and give him a fair trial or release him."

What would you do if you were pulled from doing your job, thrown into prison and tortured repeatedly? Would you be able to keep it together through months and months of torture? How long before you cracked? The US government appears to want Sami al-Haj to crack completely. They want him to have nothing left to live for. He's only one of many and what's being done is criminal.

We've allowed it to happen and we allow it to continue. And everytime Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or whomever tries to prove what a 'tough guy' they are, they distort the reality of the world we live in, the world Bully Boy has ruined for all of us.

The "surge" is a failure. The illegal war is an illegal failure. Iraqis are dying (even if Phyllis Bennis, Eric Leaver and United for Peace & Justice wants to disapper the dead Iraqis) and they're country is being destroyed and sold off. Holding my nose and voting for a War Hawk or War Cheerleader wouldn't just be voting for the Iraq War. It would be voting against self-determination, against justice, against the rule of law, against humanity, and in favor of economic destruction. This is a multi-faceted issue.

September 14, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a Blair crony sobs in public, the reviews are in for Ugly Bully and -- no surprise -- it isn't pretty, the "die-in" is tomorrow, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Gerry Condon (Courage to Resist) reports on the status of the many women and men who have elected to self-check out of the US military and go to Canada noting, "These abesentee GI's are upholding the Nuremberg Principles, which were adopted as U.S. law after World War II. By refusing to fight in illegal wars or to commit war crimes, they are exercising their rights and responsibilites as soldiers. So far, the war resisters' refugee claims have been rejected by the political appointees on Canada's refugee boards, who say that war resisters had legal avenues in the U.S. they could have pursued. They say that prosecution for being AWOL does not amount to 'persecution.' They are reluctant to call the U.S. war 'illegal'." Condon proposes that you let Stephen Harper and Diane Finley hear from you. Harper is prime minister (clicking on his name provides his e-mail, his fax is 613-941-6900) and Finley is the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (work phone number between eight in the morning until seven in the evening is 613-954-1064). Also at Courage to Resist, Spc. Justin Cliburn announces he will not be fighting in the illegal war, "I am done with the military. I don't know how exactly I will leave the service just yet, but I know that I will. I entered the army in an honorable fashion and I will leave it that way, but leave it I will. I leave Friday for Washington DC to take part in the September 15th protests in DC with tens of thousands of other concerned Americans, including representatives of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families, and the ANSWER Coalition. I am taking more and more responsibility within IVAW to end this war, take care of our veterans, and provide reparations for the Iraqi people and it feels right." Courage to Resist also offers the story of Derek Hess who entered the Army via a delayed entry program in 2005 and discovered in basic training that "we weren't training for any set mission in Iraq, just for survival." As he began to see the Iraq War as illegal and as a way to benefit Big Business, he applied for CO status in January of this year. No surprise, the US military do what they generally do: denied his application. With Hess informing the higher ups "that I would kill myself if I was sent to Iraq -- so there would be no way I could [be] used as a weapon of mass destruction for the US government," the military elected to give him a medical discharge ("honorable in character").

As Ugly Bully prepared to air last night in prime time, Iraq Veterans Against the War were ready to respond. Both Geoff Millard and Adam Kokesh spoke out, Millard on CNN's Situation Room and Kokesh on Larry King Live (videos here at IVAW, CNN transcript for Millard's appearence here, CNN transcript for Kokesh's appearnce here). Millard spoke of what he would like to hear in Bully Boy's speech, "Well, I, of course, would like to hear him say that all U.S. forces, not just merely the ones that are being forced to leave because they don't have replacements at the end of the so-called surge, to be coming home. But that's not going to happen. As his political appointee, General Petraeus said when in front of the Congress, that he couldn't even say that this war was making us safer. It's not making us safer. It's hurting the military. It's hurting us here at home. It's not protecting America. . . . let's face it, he [Petraeus] was put into the position taht he's in as a political appointee of the Bush administration. He was put there as a political appointee to continue the occupation of Iraq. And that's really what we're talking about here too, is an occupation. Not a war like we saw in World War II . . . It's an occupation. Saddam has been out of power now for quite some time, and we're occupying a foreign country." Adam Kokesh spoke after the speech and noted, "Well he said a lot of things, but first let me just commend Bush for his service in the Air Guard and choosing to go AWOL instead of being part of the war crimes and setting an example for the growing number of soldiers who have the courage to resist the way that he did out of cowardice." In response to a question from Larry King, Kokesh replied, "Success would be giving the Iraqi people the right to self-determination and the resources that they need to create the rule of law and stability in their country. And the best thing we can do to do that is pay repatriations and remove the American troop presence that is impeding that progress. . . I feel I have a moral obligation with my voice as a veteran. We have a certain power in speaking out and a relevancy in this most pressing debate before America. And with that power comes a responsibility. And I don't think I could live with myself if I wasn't doing everything I could to bring our brothers and sisters home alive, safe as soon as possible."

So those were the realities spoken last night, now let's head to Crazy Town where a dazed and lethargic Bully Boy attempted to sell "Return On Success" as this decade's "Peace With Honor" (Tricky Dick's January 23, 1973 speech). Watching, Americans grasped Why The Caged Bird Wears An Ear Piece. But sadly, he didn't wear it last night electing instead to prove he was the best little reader in first grade. Bit . . . by . . . bit . . Peterah . . . Petraues! He knew that word and resumed reading bit . . . by . . . bit. No, he isn't the "Great Communicator." No, his reading level does not appear to be higher than elementary school. Maybe all those books the White House forever insists he is "reading" are Books on Tape? If you could follow along without falling asleep, this morning you might have grasped what Robert Parry (Consortium News) did: "Let it be noted that the morning after George W. Bush announced an open-ended -- possibly permanent -- military occupation of Iraq the premier U.S. newspapers ran headlines about the President ordering 'troop cuts,' itself a troubling reminder of how the American people got into this mess. The New York Times' lead headline read: 'Bush Says Success Allows Gradual Troops Cuts.' The Washington Post went with: 'Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back "Surge".' . . . So, Americans bustling past newstands on their way to work would get the superficial impression that Bush was finally moving toward the Iraq exit door when he really was doing all he could to paint the country, and his presidential successor, into a corner." (Parry's brand new book Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush explores the media and Bully Boy and, though it should be filed under "incest" due to the nature of the relationship between the press and the Bully Boy, you can find it in the non-fiction section at bookstores and libraries and you can also order it online.) Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) added it up and found 12 references to al Qaeda and 13 to "success" but zero on "victory" and provided historical context as well, "He introduced a weak sister to 'peace with honor' that Nixon and Kissinger invoked in Vietnam. "The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success",' he said. And like Nixon and Kissinger, Bush started talking about enemy body counts. U.S. and Iraq forces, he said, 'have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January.' Somehow the resort to body counts is not reassuring. Bush let on that the American military presence in Iraq will be long term. Permanent military bases, anyone?" Rothschild also observes that, though the administration maintained an illegal war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil, Bully Boy was talking about Iraqi oil last night as well. (Rothschild's just published book is You Have No Rights: Stories of America In An Age of Repression.) Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) analyzes the performance and notes a number of things but we'll zoom in here on this, "And in January, he asked Americans for 'more patience, sacrifice and resolve.' In Thursday's speech, he did the same."

Far from the lies of the Bully Buy is the distant isle of reality. Gold Star Families Speak Out Dante Zappala wasn't on TV last night. At Military Families Speak Out, he shares what he would have discussed had he been on MSNBC's Hardball earlier this week to share his opinion of the 'progress' report: "I wanted to talk about the humanity of this war. My brother died in Iraq. He died looking for WMD. He died because this country capitulated to fear, because the people in power were hell bent on an ideology, because the principles of reason were tossed for negligent policy. The General says give us time. Where others see 12 months, or 18 months, I see bodies. I see 900, 1300 dead troops. I see tens of thousands injured, wives who will see their husbands again -- someday -- but never know them again. A million firsts will pass without wtiness. A baby's first steps, a first word, a first day of school. The consequences extend beyond this generation. The consequences are right there, in my nephew's eyes, who has the unmistakable gaze of his father."

Nancy Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observed that talk of the 18 'benchmarks' were"[l]argely gone" from last night's speech. Why was that? Because in the one report the White House fully controlled, even they could only disguise reality so far. Jennifer Loven (AP) reports the White House report on 'benchmarks' was delivered to Congress today and found "that Iraqi leaders gained little new ground on key military and political goals, a discouraging assessment a day after President Bush said progress justifies keeping a large U.S. military presence there. The report underscored the difficulty of Bush's argument that continued American sacrifice was creating space for Iraqi leaders to make gains on tamping down the sectarian fighting that leaves Iraq persistently fractured and violent." BBC reveals that the report "says Iraq has performed satisfactory on nine out of 18 benchmarks -- one more than in a previous assessment in July. Among the failures, it cites militia control over security forces and not enacting laws on sharing oil revenues."

In other news out of England, John Kampfner (New Stateman) profiles Tony Blair's ambassador to the United States, David Manning, who wants everyone to know, "You have to understand Blair the person before you get into this. A lot of what he was doing with Bush, he was doing with Clinton. Blair was very clear about the doctrine of liberal interventionism. This was not something . . . invented to justify close relations with George Bush." No, it wasn't, Blair was endorsing Bully Policies long before the Bully Boy was installed into the US White House. Manning whines that the US State Department was supposed to be in charge of reconstruction but it ended up being the Defense Department and by the time the looting in Baghdad began, "That was the moment I remember having real feelings of disquiet. Then we got very concerned when we heard the army was being disbanded and when we heard that de-Ba'athification was going ahead on the scale it was." Manning, like so many War Hawks, wants everyone to believe the illegal war was 'right' and that what resulted after the invasion began were just screw ups. A defense he might try at a War Crimes Tribunal but it probably won't go over very well there either. The destruction and tag sale on Iraq was part and parcel of the illegal war.e thought. As Naomi Klein notes in her forthcoming book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism:

If "nation creating" was going to happen in Iraq, what exactly was supposed to become of the nation that was already there? The unspoken assumption from the beginning was that much of it would have to disappear, to clear the ground for the grand experiment -- and idea that contained, at its core, the certainty of extraordinary colonialist violence. [. . .] The bombing badly injured Iraq, but it was the looting, unchecked by occupying troops, that did the most to erase the heart of the country that was. [. . .]Thanks mostly to the efforts of clerics who organized salvage missions in the midst of the looting, a portion of the artifacts has been recovered. But many Iraqis were, and still are, convinced that the memory lobotomy was intentional -- part of Washington's plans to excise the strong, rooted nation that was and replace it with their own model. "Baghdad is the mother of Arab culture," seventy-year-old Ahmed Abdullah told the Washington Post, "and they want to wipe out our culture." As the war planners were quick to point out, the looting was done by Iraqis, not foreign troops. And it's true that Rumsfeld did not plan for Iraq to be sacked -- but he did not take measure to prevent it from happening either, or to stop it once it had begun. These were the failures that cannot be dismissed as mere oversights.[. . .] Some insight into why there was so little official interest in stopping the looting has since been provided by two men who played pivotal roles in the occupation -- Peter McPherson, the senior economic adviser to Paul Bremer, and John Agresto, director of higher education reconstruction for the occupation. McPherson said that when he saw Iraqis taking state property -- cars, buses, ministry equipment -- it didn't bother him. His job, as Iraq's top economic shock therapist, was to radically downsize the state and privatize its assets, which meant that the looters were really just giving him a jump-start. "I thought the privatization that occurs sort of naturally when somebody took over their state vehicle, or began to drive a truck that the state used to own, was just fine," he said. A veteran bureaucrat of the Reagan administration and a firm believer in Chicago School ecnomics, McPherson termed the pillage a form of public sector "shrinkage." His colleague John Agresto also saw a silver lining as he watched the looting of Baghdad on TV. He envisioned his job -- "a never to be repeated adventure" -- as the remaking of Iraq's system of higher education from scratch. In that context, the stripping of the universities and the education ministry was, he explained, "the opportunity for a clean start," a chance to give Iraq's schools "the best modern equipment." If the mission was "nation creating," as so many clearly believed it to be, then everything that remained of the old country was only going to get in the way. Agresto was the former president of St. John's College in New Mexico, which specializes in a Great Books curriculum. He explained that although he knew nothing of Iraq, he had refrained from reading books about the country before making the trip so that he would arrive "with as open a mind as I could have." Like Iraq's colleges, Agresto would be a blank slate.

Turning to Iraq, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) judges yesterday's assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha as "a serious blow to President Bush and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who have both portrayed the US success in Anbar, once the heart of the Sunni rebellion against US forces, as a sign that victory was attainable across Iraq." Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports that Al Anbar Province is "under a state of emergency" -- that would be the 'model province' according to the White House -- and that "messages were being posted on international jihadist websites exulting at the end of 'the traitor and aposate'." But don't worry, hate is thriving from all sides. CBS and AP report that the sheik was buried today and those gathered "vowed revenge". Bully Boy hears that, grins and sighs, "Progress."

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Col. Hussein Alwan ("officer of the protection force in Salaheddin province health dept") was shot dead in Kirkuk today and that Hadla Ali Hassan is the name of the mother who was shot dead yesterday in Kirkuk (her daughter was injured). Reuters notes that 3 people were shot dead today in Suwayra and that, in Hilla, an attack on the home "of a senior army officer" resulted in 1 guard being shot dead and another injured.

Today the US military announced: "Four Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Diyala Province Friday, when an explosion occured near their vehicle."

Dave Lindorff (This Can't Be Happening!) notes the "accident" on Monday that claimed seven lives including two who were among seven active duty service members who wrote the New York Times op-ed noting the illegal war was lost and he notes, "The mother of one of the dead soldiers is demanding a full and open investigation into their bizarre deaths. Congress must join in that demand." As if to head off such a demand, the US military releases their statement today (my, what a quick investigation that was!) which is that the vehicle had an accident with no other car or person, just on it's way back to base and drove off a highway overpass, most natural thing in the world, apparently. They also state that along with the seven US service members who died, two Iraqi prisoners died as well. No word as to their alleged crimes.

Meanwhile, United for Peace & Justice picked a bad time to endorse an undercount. In their 'report' written by Phyllis Bennis and Eric Leaver, the numbers of Iraqis who have lost their lives in the illegal war range as low as (insert Iraqi Body Count figure) and as high as (insert the lower of two figures in the Lancet study last year -- a study that noted it was tracking deaths through July 2006 -- over a year ago) "over 600,000 plus." Well fate, like attempting to disappear dead Iraqis, can be ugly and today it slaps the authors and United for Peace & Justice (if not for correct body counts) in the face as Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Britain's ORB "has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful. The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers. According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million. [. . .] Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explains that, "The British agency Opinion Research Business surveyed more than fourteen hundred Iraqi adults." Alan Maass (US Socialist Worker) isn't one to play dumb or useless and his review of the realities in Iraq gets straight to the point noting in large, bold type, "More than 1 million Iraqis killed." He refutes the claims of progress with specific data throughout his report but that's all we have time to note.

The original Vietnam Moratorium, October 15, 1969, was a decentralized anti-war demonstration in which literally millions showed their opposition to the war around the world in a vast variety of ways. There were many school walkouts and closures; local demonstrations involving thousands around the country (a quarter of a million in D.C.; 100,000 in Boston); workplace sickouts; vigils, sit-ins at draft boards and induction centers. President Nixon pretended not to notice, but there's good evidence that the outpouring of opposition to the war prevented the war planners from using nukes against the Vietnamese (see Tom Wells, The War Within). A month later, the second moratorium day brought hundreds of thousands to Washington, complete with an angry siege of the Justice Dept. that reminded Attorney General John Mitchell, watching from inside, of the storming of the Czar's Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, back in 1917. Nixon himself, prior to the action, commented during a press conference: Google "Vietnam Moratorium" to check out what went on.Why now? The anti-war movement, for a variety of reasons, has hit a plateau since the war began in 2003, despite the majority sentiment in the country against the war. No strategies have emerged to grow the movement. The thinking behind the Iraq Moratorium is that the moment is right for nationally coordinated local anti-war actions which will allow people to express their anti-war sentiments wherever they are and in a variety of ways. At the same time the Moratorium gives local groups a focus. For example, a campus anti-war organization can decide to do whatever's appropriate for their school--a teach-in, a walk-out, a vigil, a film showing, a sit-in at a recruitment center. It's all good! The growth of the anti-war movement has to be seen as our current goal, not just a means. Every action, every demonstration should be judged by one single criterion: does it bring more people? We think that the biggest stumbling block up to now has been the too widespread belief that neither individual nor collective actions have no effect. The moratorium, allowing for a variety of tactics with one single focus, coordinated nationally and possibly internationally, has a chance of bringing antiwar expression into mainstream society. Sept. 21 will be the first moratorium day, followed by succeeding moratoriums (moratoria?) each third Friday of every month. If enough people and groups catch on, the movement grows.

That article is written by two generations of SDS, Rudd from the original and Viehmeyer from today. SDS is growing on campuses across the country and an organization to watch. (In the good way, but you can be sure the FBI is watching it as well.)

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Thursday. First of all a question? Am I the only one who thinks it's really sad that some dopey online "mash up" gets more attention than the Latino forum? Because that really is what happened. I can't turn on the radio or TV without hearing about that. The reality is the most watched debate was the Latino forum on Sunday. And that was just their TV figures. That's not counting online figures or radio. I was on the phone with Ava and C.I. today and we were discussing this topic. We'll probably do something on it at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend.

With Repbulicans and Democrats doing nothing but more of the same, let's check out the Greens. Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) works really hard getting out the word on the Green Party and she's got a post called "Circle of women: Message to Cynthia McKinney:"

Man, oh, man...I mean woman, oh, woman.I had the pleasure of shaking Cynthia McKinney's hand at the Reading, PA meeting, but I never really got a chance to speak with her. And, so much is swirling about, I can't figure out which web-sites and e-mail truly lead to the woman, herself, who I would be honored to speak with.Though, I know a woman who is even more important than me, who also wanted to talk to Cynthia McKinney.Cat Woods of California is a strong, woman leader in our party. Cat Woods cares a lot about presidential politics. And, she worked her way all the way up to being one of the two Co-Chairs of the Green Party of the United States Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC). One of the committee’s jobs is to communicate with the candidates on behalf of the party. Cat has been trying to communicate with Cynthia McKinney for ages.

As I'm reading the post, Cynthia McKinney has currently decided not to run for the Green Party nomination for president and Kimberly Wilder is explaining why she wishes McKinney would reconsider. McKinney was railroaded out of Congress not once but twice. And she really didn't have much support when she made it back in from her Democratic peers or Nancy Pelosi (Lord Nancy Pelosi?) who refused to restore Cynthia McKinney's senority. I like McKinney but I don't know enough about what's going on to weigh in so I'm just noting this.

By the way, Kimberly Wilder posted something by me this week (from my post from last Friday) which was really nice of her (but that's not why I'm posting the above, in case anyone wonders).

Now Elaine and I have been doing something so let me talk about that. Tomorrow's the last day so I can go ahead and explain what was going on. Elaine and I are a couple. (I'm at her office now as she does her vets' group.) And we used to do our posts where we'd both grab the same stuff and offer our take so you had her take and my take. That was a lot of fun.

But she's gotten some really nasty e-mails lately. And, of course, when I highlighted Dave Lindorff here, some guy starts e-mailing her about how Dave Lindorff is this and that. And complaining about the story Lindorff wrote which SHE DIDN'T EVEN LINK TO! I linked to it here. It never made it up at her site. (She links to Lindorff, we all do in the community.)

So this week, we've been going back to what we used to do in order to see if the reaction would be the same. If we're covering the same things, who's getting the nasty e-mails?

We'll probably be bringing that to Third this weekend (or next if there's no time). We were looking for something we could do that would make for a short feature (Dona's mantra! :D).

Back to the Greens (C.I. just called, I'd left a voice mail while they were speaking, and told me there was something up at the Green Party I might want to share):

"Green Party joins national antiwar demonstrations, blasts bipartisan Iraq, Iran policies"Monday, September 10, 2007Contacts:Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.orgStarlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.orgGreens, joining antiwar protests throughout September and October, hold Democratic leaders responsible for Bush's disastrous military and foreign policies'Faux Peace Party' Dems are collaborating with Bush by supporting threats of an attack on Iran and by renewing funding for the Iraq War, say Greens.Greens call impeachment of Bush and Cheney an essential part of the demand for peace, urge Americans to be skeptical of GOP media propaganda blitz this week on the US troop surge.WASHINGTON, DC -- Greens will use their presence in various antiwar demonstrations and other events throughout September and October to press the Green Party's demand for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.Green Party activists will also use their presence in actions organized by the ANSWER Coalition (September 15, ) and United For Peace & Justice (National Mobilization to End the War in Iraq, October 27, ) to stress that the Iraq War and other disastrous Bush Administrations policies are the result of bipartisan support."The greatest danger to the peace movement is that organizations and voters who oppose the war are being fooled into seeing the election of Democrats as a step towards peace, stability, and the observance of human rights in the Middle East," said Deanna Taylor, co-chair of the Green Party's Peace Action Committee (GPAX) . "It wasn't just a scheme by neocon radicals in the Bush Administration. The Iraq War has been a bipartisan project from the beginning.""Democratic Congress members joined Republicans in support of the invasion of Iraq and transfer of constitutional war powers to the White House. Now that they're in control of Congress, Democratic leaders are squandering their power," SAME PERSON added.Green Party leaders listed major points of concern that they intend to address by participating the antiwar protests:The growing likelihood of a US attack on Iran, and willingness of leading Democrats, especially presidential candidates, to support a strike. Greens warn that a US attack on Iran is now the gravest threat to world peace.A massive media propaganda blitz by the White House, including a planned address by President Bush this week, to persuade Americans that the troop surge is succeeding, timed to coincide with General Petraeus's final report, despite high Iraqi civilian casualties, continuing US troop casualties and low morale, and other indications that the situation in Iraq is worsening .The refusal of Democratic leaders to demand immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq or to cut off funding for the war ; concerns that Democrats will retreat further on opposition to war in the face of the above-mentioned Bush propaganda effort.The refusal of Democratic leaders to seek impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for numerous abuses of power, violations of the US Constitution and international law, war crimes, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Greens have called impeachment a necessary step in the effort to recall troops and end the war.Continued capitulation by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress to the demands of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, powerful rightwing Christian groups); lack of discussion about Israel's abuses of Palestinian human rights and violations of international law and UN directives; lack of debate on the role of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the decision to invade Iraq and current plans to attack Iran.Current US pressure, with bipartisan support, on the Iraqi Parliament to pass the hydrocarbon law, which will place Iraqi oil under the control of US and UK corporations and require prolonged US military presence in Iraq to protect US & UK investments. Greens have supported demands of Iraqi workers that the law be rejected and that Iraqi oil remain under Iraqi control .Green leaders are urging US voters to support the Green Party's 'Peace Slate' in the 2008 election. "If Green candidates get strong percentages in races for Congress and the White House -- or even better, a seat or two in the US House, it'll terrify the Democrats into supporting a quick end to the Iraq War," said Jim Coplen, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.Greens warned Americans that the Bush Administration has spread disinformation about Iran's role in arming factions in the Iraqi civil war and about Iran's nuclear capabilities, and has greatly exaggerated al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq"We're especially concerned that the Bush Administration may exploit -- perhaps even fabricate -- a possible terrorist incident in the coming months to intimidate Americans and sway the outcome of the 2008 election. After seven years of deception, attempts to thwart investigate into the 9/11 attacks, and disregard for law, the Bush Administration should have zero credibility among the media and the public," said Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party.MORE INFORMATIONGreen Party of the United Stateshttp://www.gp.org202-319-7191, 866-41GREENFax 202-319-7193o Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtmlo Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakerso 2007 national Green Party meeting in Reading, Pa.: video footage, blog and media coverage http://www.gp.org/meeting2007/'Open Letter to Michael Moore' from the Green Party on 'Sicko,' health care reformhttp://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_07_09.shtmlhttp://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0710-03.htm

Now if you read Ma's "Barbeque Sauce in the Kitchen" Saturday (or since), you know she thinks John Stauber's a voice worth listening to. He was a guest on Democracy Now! today and here he is talking about how the media pretends they didn't have anything to correct except maybe that they could have been more 'careful' in the lead up to the illegal war. Here he's explaining why some people believe WMD has been found and how the media hasn't corrected it:

JOHN STAUBER: Well, we've got to blame the mainstream news media. Of course, at the Center for Media and Democracy and on your program and in your reporting, we knew before the March 20, 2003 attack on Iraq that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 or Saddam and al-Qaeda and almost certainly there were no weapons of mass destruction. And yet, this information was censored out of the mainstream media. The mainstream media really delivered the big lie by censoring out the opponents and critics of the war and repeating over and over these falsehoods.And then what happened was this. Most Americans get most of their news from television. And in April of 2003 and early May of 2003, Americans literally saw the weapons of mass destruction being discovered, because these embedded reporters, whether we're talking Judith Miller at the New York Times, other major print media, the three networks, PBS, all wanted to be the first to break the story that the troops they were with discovered the weapons of mass destruction. So, as we point out in The Best War Ever, Americans actually saw the weapons discovered. They read about the discovery of the weapons. Of course, every one of those stories was 100% wrong, but Americans were promised by the President, the Vice President, that they were there, the media delivered them, and the media has never corrected or fixed this big lie that’s fixed in the minds of Americans.

Thursday, September 13, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the 'model' province suffers a setback, Bully Boy is in wardrobe and makeup preparing for his live comedy bit on American television tonight, energies move towards DC for the actions including the "die in" on Saturday led by IVAW, UFPJ releases a report that doesn't please all student activists, and more.

Starting with war resisters and returning to the roundtable where Brian Lenzo and Kyle Brown (US Socialist Worker) speak with war resister Eli Israel, war resister Camilo Mejia and Phil Aliff. Lenzo and Brown asked Mejia and Israel why they made a decision to resist?Mejia replies, "I got tired of being afraid. I realized that with everything that happened in Iraq -- and a lot of messed-up sh*t happened, from the torture of prisoners to the killing of civilians to the unnecessary exposure of our own troops -- and the inability to stand for what I believed was the right thing to do, and being there with the political conviction that the war was wrong, freedom really has nothing to do with not being in shackles or chains but with your own ability to do what you believe in your heart to be the right thing to do. I had to overcome my fear. I knew all along what the right thing was but I hadn't had the freedom to act upon that belief. It got to the point where I could no longer conciliate my conscience with my military duty, and I decided that whenever being a good soldier and being a good human being came into conflict, the right thing to do was be a good human being."

The September 15th March to Stop the War will take place in DC (meet up at noon in front of the White House) and a mood of police brutality appears to be settling over the US capital. Last weekTina Richards and Adam Kokesh took part in a peacefull press conference in Lafayette Square that police felt the need to break up. Richards and Kokesh both attempted to put up flyers for the March on fhe 15th and, for that 'crime,' were subjected to extreme force. Richards has declared, "I have been asked if knowing all that would happen, the intimidation, the injuries and pending legal costs, would I do it again. 'Yes,' I have answered. 'Any day is a good day for the first amendment'." On Monday, attempting to hear Davey Petraeus give testimony to the House, Rev. Lennox Yearwood (IVAW and Hip Hop Congress) was attacked. He spoke with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales (Democracy Now!) about what he experienced:

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, on September 10, I went to hear the hearing,[. . .] So I was going in, in essence, to make government more transparent. It was also critical for me as a person of color to be in the room to report back to my community. But instead, when I got there, I was waiting in line. I was standing there. I had to do a radio interview. I asked the officer, I said, "Can I step out of line for a second to do an interview?" He said, "No problem." I did my interview. I came back to the line. I got back in the line. I was waiting. And then, all of a sudden -- it was somewhat suspicious -- another officer came down, was passing out blue post-it notes. And as he was coming in the line, he actually came to me and actually Colonel Ann Wright, who was standing with me. It was amazing. The two officers who were going in to hear General Petraeus, he actually told us both, "You can't get in," and then walked past us. And so, me and Colonel Ann Wright looked at each other and said, "Why can't we get in?" He said, "You can't get in." And so, we went up forward, and we kept walking to the front of the line and said, "Why are we being denied?" "You just can't get in." And so, somebody came and passed one of the blue post-it notes to Colonel Wright and put it in her hand. And she showed it to him. "I didn't give you that." She said, "I know. Why can't we get in?" He said, "Well, OK, you can get in." And she said, "What about Reverend Yearwood?" He said, "No, he can't get in." And that's when it started. I said, "Why are you singling me out? What is going on?" It's important to know. We have this huge rally at the White House, and a march to the Capitol is coming Saturday. And I know my picture is on the flier. But regardless, I asked, "Why are you singling me out?" At that point in time, they became to be aggressive, and they got around me. And I said that -- "You're going to be arrested." I said, "What am I going to be arrested for? What have I done? I just want to go inside and hear the hearing for myself." At that point in time, one came behind me, said, "You're going to be arrested." And then somebody grabbed me on my shoulder. And I kind of turned. Amy, by the time I turned, I was on the ground. And I actually just felt myself going headfirst into the concrete. [. . .] And so, when they pulled out of -- they actually didn't pull me out. They just stopped me from getting in, and they wouldn't tell me why. They just stopped me. What was worse, when they leaped on me, started to beat me in the halls of Congress. And I say, here I am, a former officer lying in the halls of Congress, while there's another officer in the hearing lying to the Congress. And here I am just lying and being beaten. I couldn't understand.

The YouTube video of the assault of Yearwood is played on Democracy Now! and will in the DN! archive even if vanishes from YouTube at some point. Yearwood being thrown to the ground and assaulted in the Capitol by the Capitol police is and should be shocking. It is also part of a rising pattern. As The Third Estate Sunday Review editorialized Sunday, "What happened to Richards, Kokesh, Thompson and the rest -- including the press -- should be seen as the seminal moment it is. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. And if you don't call this out, be prepared for the next Ohio because it will come bit by bit. Get angry. And don't use stuff the anger, let it fuel you to make demands of your elected representatives, to practice civil disobedience and to insist that the illegal war be ended and Bully Boy be impeached. If you don't know where to start, many trying to make a difference will be gathering in DC on September 15th."

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Sheikh Sattar Abo Risha, the head of Anbar awakening council was killed in an IED explosion targeted his armed car near his house in Ramadi city today afternoon. Abo Risha's nephew, his aid and two of his guards were killed in the explosion." Jay Price and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explain that the late Sheikh "lunched with President Bush during the president's brief visit to Anbar just 10 days ago" and that this "was the second assassination of Anbar tribal leaders key to the anti-al Qaida rebellion that has become the Bush administration's No. 1 example of progress in Iraq. In June, four sheiks of the Anbar Salvation Council were killed along with eight other people when a suicide bomber slipped past security at a Baghdad hotel and detonated a bomb he was wearing." The BBC summarizes their correspondent in Baghdad, Hugh Sykes, evaluation of the "severe blow" of the assassination as: "It may undermine the new movement against al-Qaeda in Iraq, he says, or it could strengthen resolve to resist the insurgents, who are regarded by an increasing number of people in Anbar as unwelcome invaders." Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) offers that "Abu Risha assumed a high profile, appearing on television as a symbol and spokesman of the movement while making public appearances in and around Ramadi, as if daring al-Qaeda to kill him. His death might deter others from taking a similarly public role. Without a charismatic spokesman willing to be the Anbar Salvation Council's public face, the movement's morale could falter." Martin Fletcher (Times of London) writes, "The Times has interviewed Sheikh Sittar twice in the past year. Urbane, chain-smoking and impeccably dressed in long white robes and headdress, he was a sheikh from central casting. . . . During the second interview, two weeks ago, as his three children played on the grass, he joked about how his grandfather had fought the British in the colonial era. When I asked how many times he had escaped assassination he laughed. 'Many times. I can't count,' he replied, as his children played on the lawn in front of him." Al Jazeera's correspondent James Bays declares, "This is a man who had a controversial past, but in recent months he has become a very prominent figure even meeting George Bush." CBS and AP note that no one has come forward to claim credit or "responsibility for the assassination" and that "[p]rivately, two U.S. officials said earlier that his assassination would be a huge setback for U.S. efforts in Iraq, because it sends a message to others who are cooperating with coalition forces or thinking about cooperating against al Qaeda." CNN notes, "It is unclear if the bomb was remotely detonated or triggered by the convoy."

In other violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 4 lives and left ten more wounded, and a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left three injured. Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer (two more injured)

Shootings?

Reuters reports a police officer was shot dead in Mosul with four others wounded,

Yesterday in another softball interview conducted by Anderson Cooper (CNN) in Iraq (where are the charges that he's just in Iraq for the ratings?), Cooper counted it a success that he was able to get the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki to concede that "there is a problem in parliament, in ministries, in how ministries are selected . . . ." Coops was so thrilled about it that he forgot to point out the heads of all cabinets (ministries) were appointed by whom? al-Maliki. And as Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) observed today, "The apparent collapse comes amidst a new White House effort to convince lawmakers US goals in Iraq are being achieved. Pushing through a new oil law has been high on the list." What? As James Glanz (New York Times) noted, the theft of Iraqi oil appears on hold and al-Maliki is convinced that "there is a simpler reason the Sunnis abandoned or at least held off on the deal: signing it would have given Mr. Maliki a political success that they did not want him to have." Glanz white washes the reality of the law that would provide for the theft of Iraqi oil, but that's the Times for you, right? Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) notes that "Iraq's oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani" declared the proposed deal between Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdish north "illegal."

Turning to other news, Wednesday on WBAI's Wakeupcall Radio, Sue Udry (United For Peace and Justice) spoke with Deepa Fernades about [PDF format warning] "Iraq: The People's Report" which details a number of issues including the Iraqi refugee crisis, the lack of power and potable water. Udry noted, "We're up close to half a trillion dollars -- five hundred billion dollars spent in Iraq. And the Bush administration is asking -- we're still not sure how much more he wants. But between 140 and 200 billion more. But that-that five-hundred billion could have been spent on for example, in the US could have built, over 4 million affordable housing units we could have paid 7 million public school teachers, we could have insured 272 million unisured childred."

The report has many strong points. But it's already led to complaints on campuses we've spoken at this week. The question students want to know (wording it nicely here): Is there a reason Phyllis Bennis and Eric Lever low ball the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives? "Estimates range from 71,017-600,000+" is shameful. If they're going to go with the lower estimate (Iraq Body Count) it is incumbent upon Bennis and Lever to use the correct number from the Lancet Study which WAS NOT six-hundred-thousand-plus. It was 655,000-plus. [PDF format warning] "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey" was written by Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy and Les Roberts. From the third paragraph of the summary: "We estimate that as of July 2006, there have been 654 965 (392979-942636) which corresponds to 2-5% of the population in the study area." The number is 654,965 and that was the number through July 2006 -- last year. In October of 2006, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) began the interview she and Juan Gonzalez conducted with Les Brown noting, "More than 650,000 people have died in Iraq since the U.S. led invasion of the country began in March of 2003. This is according to a new study published in the scientific journal, The Lancet. The studdy was conducted by researches at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad." On March 27th of this year, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "BBC News is reporting the British government ignored the conclusions of its own experts when it dismissed a medical studdy estimating more than 650,000 Iraqis have died due to the Iraq war. The study appeared in the British medical journal the Lancet last year. Researches based their findings on interviews with a random sampling of households taken in clusters across Iraq. In newly-released memos, the chief scientific adviser at Britain's Ministry of Defence called the researcher's methods 'close to best practice' and 'robust.' Both the US and Britain publicly rejected the study and criticized its methods."

That may be understandable from government liars. It is not understandable from peace groups. What could have been a strong resource for UFPJ has instead become a source of mockery or a source of anger on several college campuses. And you know what? The students are right to be angry. Saying 600,000 is dishonest. And the number was over 600,000 in July of 2006 -- over a year ago. Things like getting the numbers wrong (intentionally) go a long way towards explaining why so many students against the illegal war are writing off the established peace movement. This is the warning and groups can heed it or they can ignore it. But stunts like that are exactly why students are washing their hands of a number of groups and see them as inherently useless. (The authors of the report should also be paying attention to the reaction. Especially Bennis because she's better known and that's not a good thing in this instance.)

1,040,369 is the current estimate of Iraqis killed during the illegal war. That number is via Just Foreign Policy which uses the Lancet study as well as the deaths reported since then -- and notes that all deaths are not reported so the number is higher than their estimate. In September of 2007, you need to do better than offer up a number from July of 2006 (which you still get wrong) and when you don't, you better accept the questions you're inviting about exactly how much value you place on Iraqi lives because the student movement has moved beyond the nonsense that's being pushed off on them. They're not the timid crowd and they're not going to take direction from anyone but especially not from those they don't trust. Something as basic as the numbers leads to questions, not trust.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

It's Hump Day and Barack Obama's trying to hump the peace movement's leg. If we pay attention, we won't be flattered. :D

Baby Bama or Bam-Bam, gave a speech today where he shook his rattle and gurgled prettily about war on Iran and tried to trick the American people with a shell game he presented as 'withdrawal'. Bam-Bam's itching for his own blood kills which is probably why he declared:

When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.

The fight in Afghanistan? You mean bombing the hell out of a country to return war lords to power? That's what the US did. The only 'growth' in Afghanistan was the increase in poppy production.

Baby Bam-Bam needs someone to change his nappy and put him back in his crib. I guess that's Mama War Hawk Samantha Power -- leader of Our Modern Day Carrie Nations. Sammy, get the axe and the talcom powder! :D

His Mama War Hawk or possibly his Wet Nurse, Samantha Power is a War Hawk who likes to hiss "Never Again" but, sadly, isn't referring to public speaking. :D

Of all my favorite pieces we've done on The Problem From Hell Power, my favorite is probably the short short "Samantha Power Between Her Knees" (The Third Estate Sunday Review). Cause it's funny and true! :D

In a peaceful world, she'd be encouraged to seek medical help. Instead, the War Hawk is applauded as a "thinker" because, apparently, it takes a lot of 'brain' to repeat, "War! War! War!" over and over.

But as much as I'm infuriated by the Bush brigade's steadfast support of the Iraq horror, I find myself angrier still when pro-war liberals -- the so-called reluctant hawks -- wring their hands over the bloody mess they've wrought with their neo-conservative allies.There are many such handwringers in politics, especially within the leadership of the Democratic Party. Sen. Joseph Biden, of Delaware, is forever asking "tough questions" about Iraq (the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo upset him terribly), without drawing the obvious conclusion that we never should have attacked in the first place, and need to get out as fast as possible.In journalism, the current handwringer-in-chief is the New Yorker writer George Packer, whose book The Assassins' Gate has met with high praise from handwringers, hawks, and a subset of pundits I call trimmers. Handwringers "anguish" over their past or current support for the war; hawks don't apologize for anything; and trimmers criticize Bush the foolish president, but avoid unequivocal denunciations of this foolish war.Christopher Hitchens, a ferocious hawk, has embraced The Assassins' Gate, calling Packer "both tough-minded enough, and sufficiently sensitive, to register all [the] complexities [of the Iraq conflict]." The handwringer Samantha Power went even gushier in her blurb on the back cover: "Packer . . . cuts past the simplistic recriminations and takes us on an unforgettable journey that begins on a trail of good intentions and winds up on a devastating trail of tears."

Here's my blurb for Samantha Power: "Sammy Power tries to take the world into eternal war the ends in destruction!" No one who cares about ending the illegal war 'blurbs' George Packer. He was the Judy Miller at The New Yorker. Power would probably have blurbed Judith Miller if she still had a job as a reporter. She's now Bam-Bam's minder and that tells you a great deal about him that he brought her in (when he entered the Senate) to tutor him. (The burping and diaper changes were apparently just bonuses! :D)

U.S. Accused of Killing Innocents in Sadr CityThe Congressional hearings on Iraq came as U.S. forces faced more allegations of killing innocent civilians in Baghdad. Residents of Sadr City say two civilians were killed and six others injured in a U.S. raid.Local resident Umm Hussein: "What is our guilt? Neither al- Maliki nor Talabani can stop the U.S. forces. So, what is the government for?"

How many more Iraqis are going to die in this illegal war? It's already over a million. At what point are we going to demand that the press starts telling their stories? Yeah, the reporters hide in the Green Zone but refugees are going to Syria and Jordan all the time. Why aren't their stories on the front page? Why don't we hear about what they witnessed in Iraq before they left? Maybe because it doesn't fit in with Bully Boy's 'winning' myth?

Hey, I was about to post and doing my tags when I saw The Common Ills mirror site was showing up. It says 66 sites link to it. There are 103 for the main site. That's like 169. I didn't get ahold of C.I. (I think everyone's speaking) but I mentioned that before when I've grabbed tags and asked, "Who are these people linking?" C.I. has no idea. If you do, drop me an e-mail at irishmike02@yahoo.com but I'm planning to go to DC with everyone for the weekend so I may not see it right away, just FYI.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, another big robbery takes place in Iraq, Bully Boy spends today being pampered for tomorrow's big event, Obama tries to put one over on voters, and more.

Starting with war resistance, Eli Israel is the first US service member to publicly refuse to take part in the illegal war while stationed in Iraq. Brian Lenzo and Kyle Brown (US Socialist Worker) speak with Israel, war resister Camilo Mejia and Phil Aliff. Here, Eli Israel is discussing what he realized while in Iraq:

Militarily, you can't fight "terrorism" by browbeating "terrorists." You can't terrify terrorists into not attacking you.And let's throw out the word "terrorists." You can't browbeat people into not attacking you. Believe it or not, most people want to live in peace. Believe it or not, most Palestinians and Israelis want to live in peace. I've changed my perspective on the world in so many ways because of what's going on in Iraq. To think that they would continue this situation forever without us doing the things we're doing is ridiculous. We're creating people to attack us tomorrow. The doors that are getting kicked in, the people who are being harassed, the children who are crying, the women who are seeing their houses torn apart in front of them, the men who are being shot while defending their own families, the neighbors who are being interrogated with Tasers to turn in their neighbors--all of those people are going to hate us for what we're doing. When are we going to accept responsibility?

On Sunday, the New York Times ran a piece written by seven active duty service members entitled "Iraq As We See It" (click here for Common Dreams, click here for International Herald Tribune -- available in full at both without registration) which noted "Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricty, telephone services and sanitation. 'Lucky' Iraqis live in communities barricaded with concrete walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal. In an environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. . . . In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal." The piece is signed by US Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, Sgt. Wesley D. Smith, Sgt. Jeremy Roebuck, Sgt. Omar Mora, Sgt. Edward Sandmeier, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, Staff Sgt. and Jeremy A. Murphy.

Mitchell notes, "One of the other five authors of the Times piece, Staff Sergeant Jeremy Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head while the article was being written. He was expected to survive after being flown to a military hospital in the United States."

As a warm up act, Davey & the Petraeuses didn't do much to excite the crowds, not even the duet (performed with Ryan Crocker) of "Stay" ("a little bit longer . . .") did much to whet appetites for the main attraction. The reviews were hostile to brutal. The San Jose Mercury News editorialized that Davey couldn't "conceal that the surge has failed" and "Bush has no strategy beyond his faith in Petraeus and the knowledge that, in 14 months, Iraq will become another president's burden." Newsday's James P. Pinkerton felt Davy's act was old and moldy and explained how it had been pulled from mothballs out of the Vietnam era. Stan Goff (CounterPunch) found the offstage chorus lacking and also wasn't impressed with Davey's costume: "The articulate, level-voiced General, though he only went to combat when Bush invaded Iraq, has more fruit salad on his chest than any veteran of three previous wars."Arun Gupta (Democracy Now!) pointed out that Davey had never lived up to the earlier hype including a 2004 Newsweek cover which boasted of his abilities to train the Iraq police and military and that when he trained Shia militias (such as the Special Police Commandos) he "issued the usual denials: 'Oh, we're not giving them any weapons. This is an Iraqi initiative.' And so, now he's saying the same thing with the Sunni militias."

So Thursday night, Ugly Bully airs on ABC following Ugly Betty as Bully Boy takes to primetime to deliver his equivalent of Tricky Dick's "Peace With Honor" speech. Though Bully Boy's speech is expected to be as out of touch and laced with lies as Nixon's January 23, 1973 speech, his speech writers are still hard at work in attempting to top the howlers Nixon lobbed such as "The important thing was not to talk about peace". A 'wisdom' Bully Boy has internalized.

In the October issue of Vanity Fair, former New York Times reporter Todd S. Purdum offers the establishment view on the Bully Boy that's still worlds away from what he could have offered at the New York Timid. From "Inside Bush's Bunker" (page 334, article runs from 332 to 335 and 390-395):

Now, with not quite a year and a half left before Bush leaves office, we have already arrived at the beleaguered endgame of his presidency. From deep inside the fortified precints of the White House, the president projects a preternatural calm. He gives orders to nonexistent armies, which his remaining lieutenants gamely transmit: "Reform immigration!" "Overhaul the tax codes!" "Privatize Social Security!" Outside the bunker, in the country that his administration now refers to as "the homeland," there is chaos and confusion. The Democrats bridged the Ptomac after winning the elections last fall, and the Blue Army has now overrun most of political Washington. Its flag flies above the Capitol. More and more of the president's subordinates have been captured and interrogated, most notabley the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. Others, such as Matthew Dowd, the president's former chief campaign strategist, have managed to make good their escape -- Dowd by parachuting onto the front page of the enemy New York Times with a detailed denuciation of Bush's policies. Indepenent powers that would sue for peace -- the Baker-Hamilton Commission, for example -- have been banished. Some loyalists, including presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, have simply fled to the safety of the private sector. For one reason or another, most of the commander in chief's senior advisers are now gone, replaced by callow upstarts and last-chance opportunists. The two most powerful advisers have been the president's second-in-command and his propaganda minister -- his vice president and his political strategist -- who had been at his side from the beginning and have remained close and trusted, despite the catastrophes they helped to engineer. Dick Cheney will haunt the bunker till the end, but the political strategist, Karl Rove, has quietly slipped away. The leader himself -- with his lady and his loyal dog -- soldiers on, in an atmosphere of disconnection and illusion. Lurid tabloid tales may hint at binge drinking and marital estrangement, although visitors report uniformly, and much to their surprise, that the president seems optimistic, unbowed, chipper, his gaze bright and steadfast. The tide is about to turn! We will prevail! But it is a hermetic and solidarity existence.

DONALD BARLETT: Yes, in the beginning. But then it was moved about the country in different ways. But what is striking about this is that here you have $12 billion and actually many more billions later coming through that process, but no auditing arm established to track the money. And that is just amazing.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the irony of the Coalition Provisional Authority initials, CPA, that there was no accounting.

DONALD BARLETT: Exactly.

JAMES STEELE: No certified public accountant on duty.

DONALD BARLETT: No. And this is an interesting organization in itself, because when we traced it back, it is literally a rogue agency within this country. There is no formal document establishing it. Congress has funded it with taxpayer dollars at that time, but it was never created within the legal process of Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, explain this, Jim, because this is quite astounding. When it comes to accountability then -- where has the money gone -- and even lawsuits, the question is: who ran the Coalition Provisional Authority?

JAMES STEELE: The Coalition Provisional Authority, which created this illusion that this was this multinational force, was basically run by the Pentagon. It was a creation of the Pentagon. Most of the contracts were awarded with the approval of the Pentagon. This was totally their entity. And it became an absolutely perfect sieve for this cash, because it only existed for fourteen months, and then we turned Iraq over to the Iraqis. And during that period, because it was not a US government agency, because it was not really an entity of the UN, because it was a rogue operation, as Don has mentioned, nobody was responsible for really what happened to that money. And, in fact, some of the litigation that has come up in this country, the traditional whistleblower things, it's basically failed so far, because you're not dealing with malfeasance within a normal US government agency.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain with the lawsuit, using that as an example.

JAMES STEELE: The reason -- courts have ruled that because this is not an entity of the United States government, normal whistleblowers, people who observe wrongdoing within an agency, see theft and so forth, cannot appeal to the courts, because nobody has authorized this thing. I mean, it's a classic Catch-22 situation. I mean, you've created this thing that isn't legitimate, therefore you can't sue it. But in the meantime, it's become this wonderful repository for this incredible amount of cash.

Turning to Iraq today where, MADRE notes, "Figures from Iraqi hospitals, morgues, and police logs show that civilian killings are double what they were this time last year. Women from MADRE's Iraqi sister organization, the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), have taken on the gruesome task of visiting morgues to try to assess the number of women killed in gender-based attacks. They report that the killings of women have skyrocketed under US occupation and that the 'surge' has done nothing to diminish the trend." And where Andrew North (BBC) notes female medical student Kulsoom hasn't left her Baghdad home "in two months" due to the violence having already "missed half her classes last year because of bombs, shootings and other threats" and Kulsoom says, "Nothing has really changed." Today a large protest took place in Baghdad. AFP reports: "Hundreds of Shiites and Sunnis marched on Wednesday in protest at the building by US troops of a tall concrete wall separating their northwest Baghdad neighbourhoods, an AFP photographer said. The protesters complained that the wall would promote sectarianism and demanded its removal. Residents said that US forces last week began building the two-kilometre (1.25 mile) wall along the border of the mainly Shiite al-Shuala and adjoining Sunni-majority al-Ghazaliyah neighbourhoods without consulting them." BBC notes the banners read "No to the dividing wall" and The wall is US terrorism."

Bombings?

Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing claimed 2 lives and left five wounded, a Kirkuk bombing aimed at "the head's of the local council convoy of Al Haweeja province injured three of his bodyguards" Reuters notes a Rasheed mortar attack that claimed the life of 1 person and left a child injured, a Hawija roadside bombing that left three injured, and an Iskandariya mortar attack that claimed that left four people wounded.

Shootings?

Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi police major Khalid Jabur was shot dead in front of his home in Tirkit. AP reports, "Gunmen ambushed an Iraqi police checkpoint south of Mosul early Wednesday, killing six policemen and wounding four, police said." CBS and AP report, "Gunmen opened fire on a car in Diyala's al Salam area, killing two and wounding two others, while an hour later in another area, assailants shot into a crowd in central Muqdadiyah killing two and wounding two, police said".

Robberies?

Reuters notes two Baghdad robberies -- in one the robbers made off with $240,000 after stopping a minibus of bank employees and in the other the robbers wore "camouflage uniforms" when they stopped bank employees "in two vehicles" and made off with $550,000.

Turning to political news, Bully Boy doesn't believe in science but he's now on record as a believer in some form of evolution. Monday, while flying to Australia, AFP reports Bully Boy gave his complete backing to the puppet government of Nouri al-Maliki and praised al-Maliki's "evolving" abilities. Possibly, on the heels of Oprah's endorsement (of Barack Obama), Bully Boy just wanted to get in one of his own? It hasn't gone over well. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports of "dismay" in Iraq with Iraqi politicians questioning why stronger statements about the lack of progress were made by both Davey Petraeus and Ryan Crocker when they were in Iraq (The answer? Greater proximity to the White House results in tighter scripts) and Fadel quotes Mhmoud Othman ("independent Kurdish legislator") declaring, "We don't see any reconciliation," while a Shi'ite parliamentarian declares, "There are many things that the U.S. has done wrong in Iraq, and one or two years later they say, 'That was a mistake.' This is another wrong."

In US political news, Senator Barack Obama continued to his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination today. He began it this morning on NBC's Today show where, after calling out the Bully Boy for not heeding the will of the American people (they want US troops out of Iraq), he then declared that, were he to be elected president, he would reduce the number of troops there, keeping an unspecified number stationed in Iraq for 'security.' Obama saw no inconsistency between his remarks and no doubt the press that loves him will continue refusing to call him out. Reuters, citing excerpts of a released speech, notes that Obama's afternoon strategy was to insit "that we have to begin to end this war now." Again this is the usual shell game Congressional Dems have attempted to trick the American public with. He's calling for 'combat' troops. Troops would still remain for 'security' and 'training'. It's as much as con game as Bully Boy's intended announcement tomorrow that he will 'draw down' the number of troops . . . to pre-escalation numbers (as he knew would happen before the escalation started). John McCormick (Tribune via Baltimore Sun) observes of Obama's attempts at delivering a fiery speech, "That rhetoric is similar to the position New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have expressed for months. While Obama's speech added some new detail, it did not offer any dramatically new insights about his position on the war." Excerpts also have Obama issuing his "I was against the illegal war before it started" line while refusing to note that he was also against withdrawal in 2004 while campaigning for the Senate and that he was against withdrawal in the Senate judging by his voting record until this past summer.

Turning to peace news, William Blum becomes the latest in a long line of 'end the war' writers to attempt to Arlen Specter it. Writing at Counterpunch, Blum has discovered the "magic bullet" and it is "American soldiers" -- that will end the illegal war! That's what ended another illegal war (Vietnam) and it will do so again today! There is something really sad about how quickly history vanishes but there's something even sadder about the constant need to disown power and instead rush off in search of a hero. (There's also something sad about using the term "soldiers" when everyone should know by now that different branches do not like being referred to as "soldiers.") What ended that earlier illegal war? Fear. Fear from the top. "The country is split," the media jaw boned. It wasn't split. The people wanted US troops out of Vietnam by an overwhelming majority. The split wasn't between the people and their alleged represenatives as well as those who stood to continue profiting from that illegal war. Troops who resistered played a key part as did other elements of society. (For resistance within the military, see the brilliant documentary Sir! No Sir!) That's where the "split" was. The comfort level of the elites was "split" out of fear that the country could fall apart if the illegal war was continued. You had protests, you had walk outs, you had civil disobedience . . . It was no longer as comfortable for them as it had been. That's what forced the end of the illegal war. And you had those things in civil society and within the military. Blum is on strong ground writing about the importance of IVAW, he's on weak ground when he tells people that's 'the answer'. Blum should know that's not reality. He left the State Dept. over Vietnam -- an action others took part in and that also sent a message. Whether it's a need to find a hero (hero worship currently seems to be plauging a number of males who took part in ending an earlier illegal war) or a desire to hype that's driving Blum, I have no idea. But there is no single-solution answer, no "magic bullet," that will end this illegal war (even impeaching the Bully Boy -- which I support -- would not end the illegal war, there are too many members of Congress interested in continuing it). And there was no single-solution that forced the government to pull US forces out of Vietnam. It was a broad based movement that required all levels of actions from all sections of society. Writing "Only those fighting the war can end it" is the height of ignorance. As hype, when the "support" 'answer' fails, a lot of young people (already leery of all the hype that's been forced down their throat by the 'anti-war' movement) are going to be even more pissed off (not at the government, at 'leaders'). As hero worship? Grow up. What is Blum, 70 now? Whatever he is, he's old enough to not still be dreaming of the Lone Ranger riding in to save the day. Instead of pointing people to turn to others for the answers, the peace movement needs to get honest about the fact that the answer to ending the illegal war is in everyone of us. It's in our taking action, it's in our taking to the streets, it's in our using our own voices. The answer is in each of us, in every element of society.

Now today, a number of women are stationed in Iraq and required to 'fight.' But let's be really honest about this masculinist b.s. these men keep pushing. It says the "men" in Iraq will save the day and all we have to do is make like Natalie Wood cheering on the drag race, like good little women waiting for the illegal war to end. As Elaine's noted, our biggest mistake (some -- not all -- women's biggest mistake) during Vietnam appears to have been the vast amounts of time we spent getting male 'leaders' ready to speak, chasing away the fears, stroking the ego. We should have all pushed you out on stage while you were a jumble of nerves or near tears so you could have faced some reality. Maybe then you wouldn't come back all these years later promoting lies that are offensive and sexist. And then getting shocked when you're called them out on it. If you say, as one did, that it was "the draft" that motivated (college) student action during Vietnam because "we" all had to go through that invasive physical, you're being a sexist pig. "We" didn't all go through a physical. And, as Rebecca noted, don't talk invasive until you've had an exam where your feet are in stirrups. Let me join Elaine in asking what has happened to the Young Lions of those days? (Not a reference to the Young Lords.) Can any of them make a statement that doesn't rely on the inverse of the John Wayne (or is it The Deer Hunter?) movie damage they all appear to be suffering from -- apparently caught during the midst of a middle age panic? Really, boys (term used intentionally), you're embarrassing yourselves. As for Blum, someone in charge of the Washington Free Press all that time ago should be able to check their old clippings if their memory is currently failing them.

While the former Young Lions seem to be emerging from some Robert Bly workshop, Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) offers a serious look about what's required to end this illegal war and others in a dialogue with Ashley Smith. They both note the importance of IVAW but they don't make the mistake of instructing, "Just support them! They are the answer!" Ashley Smith lays it out speaking of Vietnam, "We ended it through dynamic interaction between a truly mass domestic anti-war movement, a rebellion among the US troops and Veterans documented in David Cortright's brilliant book Soldiers in Revolt, and the national liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people. That's exactly what we must build today. We must build a grassroots and sustained anti-war movement expressed through demonstrations, sit-ins, teach-ins and many other tactics to turn majority anti-war sentiment into the social power to shut down campuses, paralyze cities in mass protests, and even organize strikes at workplaces against the war."

Followers

About Me

I'm Michael, Mike to my friends. College student working his way through. I'm also Irish-American and The New York Times can kiss my Irish ass. And check out Trina's Kitchen on my links, that's my mother's site.